EFF Assails YouTube For Removing "Downfall" Parodies

Locke2005 writes "In what promises to be one of the quickest threads to become Godwin'ed, YouTube has pulled scores of parodies of the 'Hitler Finds Out' scene from the movie The Downfall. Ironically, I had never heard of this movie before this — and now I want to watch it." Here is the EFF complaint. David Weinberger has posted some details on Google's Content Identification tool, which is being used in the shotgun takedowns.

Comments

Ich bin Hitler

[Looce]

und ich bin erste!

(first post, thread is now godwinned)

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[poetmatt]

it's easy to get around the content filter really.

how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps? Once you do that, the automated scanner will not be able to find your video at all. It will sound practically identical, as well.

Just shows how pitiful the attempts by copyright groups are, since they don't even review the videos.

For video that relies on the graphic, you just have to create a single vertical line (maybe green or something, 1 pixel wide) going down the entire frame of the video, and then the graphic filter won't find it either.

Just shows ya, the more you try to stifle, less it works.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[poetmatt]

ahh, here it is. The how-to.

http://www.csh.rit.edu/~parallax/

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how big dose your binder full of work arounds get before you address the root problem? Over the last decade mine is starting to look like an encyclopedia. I am thinking about setting up a wiki just to keep track. Christ almighty a work around for work arounds.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

And every single video posted on that site has been taken down.

Yeah, you guys sure outsmarted Google.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

a new common one is to swap the video right-left. gets right around it.

more advanced techniques could included minor audio/video processing.

i mean come on, this sort of thing is just the sort of challenge your average basement dweller revels in.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Jurily]

Duh. The real question is, how long did those videos last before being publicized, and how long compared to other "illegal" streams of bytes.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, yeah -- kind of hard for them not to find a heavily linked site that detailed the methods for the workaround. And such a challenge for them to delete all the videos, including the one that contained 100% white noise. If you'd pull your head out of your ass for a moment, you might realize that he did outsmart Google and expose the means of bypassing automated filtering. Now that his pages is widely linked, of course they took down the videos linked from them--but the methods remain workable.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[poetmatt]

those videos were up for more than a year. You could repost them and they still pass the filter *today* with the pitch change.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday, Adolf!

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[tokul]

how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps?

Some parodies don't use original text from that furious Hitler scene. Subtitles and audio are different.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[marcansoft]

Apparently all of those videos on that page have been pulled. Including the pure white noise one. I wonder how they justify that one.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[cyphercell]

regardless, I don't the the fuhrer is going to appreciate it. It's not the first time google has messed with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEeOAQ2NUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3gVhulbUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SDDkETCIQ

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Xeno man]

Here is a simple one. Stop using youtube. Youtube has become so shitty it's not worth using anymore. There are tons of video hosting sites that don't cover your videos with ads or randomly take them down.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[jez9999]

Apparently all of those videos on that page have been pulled. Including the pure white noise one. I wonder how they justify that one.

Germany considers it too racist. There should have been a representative mix of white and black noise.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Khyber]

Vimeo is a great site. They had real HD before Youtube, and better features that made it worth paying for.

That reminds me, I need to renew my plus subscription.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[mapkinase]

I suspect that many violations are reported by humans. Dark, evil humans.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[mcgrew]

Quick! Someone parody The Producers!

After an extensive search the partners find an unproduced play worthy of their efforts: Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden, a work which Bialystock gleefully describes as "a love letter to Hitler," written in total sincerity by deranged ex-Nazi Franz Liebkind (Kenneth Mars). They convince Liebkind to sign over the stage rights, telling him they want to show the world "the true Hitler, the Hitler with a song in his heart."

Second Godwin!

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Scrameustache]

it's easy to get around the content filter really.

how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps?

People are not geeks and have no idea what you're geeking on about. Getting the vid uploaded to youTube was all the technical stuff they were willing to put up with.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[logixoul]

Better features like what?

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[Khyber]

Full HTML Embedding, Complete video control, TRUE HD (When Youtube was advertising 'HD' originally it was anti-aliased 640x272 video) And the best part is that the community is actually helpful.

And you don't get the annoying commenters because they get banned pretty rapidly.

Well worth $20 or so a year. That also doesn't include 5GB of HD video uploading every week. Hell I can't even use all of that.

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[treeves]

Here, let me simplify it for them:
Extract the audio as mp3 from an mp4 (or whatever packaging/encoding of the video file you happen to have) using ffmpeg or some equally capable video editor, then
According to the formula n = 3986 log10(a/b) where n = the number of cents of pitch difference between pitches a and b, using Mathematica, Maxima or some other Computer Algebra System (CAS), set n equal to 100 or 110 (1 or 1.1 semitones in equal temperament) and solve for a/b.
Then, using an audio editor like ProTools or Audacity, do a pitch shift (be sure not to change the tempo) by the ratio a/b, and export the resulting audio as an mp3.
Finally, paste the edited mp3 file back into your video file (with the original audio removed) again using ffmpeg or a similar tool.
Voila!

Re:Ich bin Hitler

[poetmatt]

google deleted them all on purpose. No accident there.

You can still do the same things and a video will succeed 100%. You need to do about 7.5% pitch and you'll pass a video every single time.

Such a wordsmith!

[Anonymous Coward]

Identifacition?

Really?

Re:Such a wordsmith!

[Cryacin]

Identifacition?

Really?

What? That's a perfectly cromulent word that embiggens us all.

Hitler wouldn't dare run Spelljammer.

[Culture20]

I love those things. The Gencon Battletech one was the first one I ever saw.

Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, since "fair use" doesn't have a definition that allows a reasonable person to determine objectively "that is fair use" or "that isn't fair use" it means each instance is handled on a case by case basis and pretty much needs a judge to determine what is and is not fair use. Of course, the normal view is that "parody" is fair use. However, in a case like this - is the movie truly being parodied? It sucks that we don't have a solid litmus test for fair use that doesn't require litigation.

Re:Unfortunate

[DurendalMac]

I doubt it. Weird Al making a parody by basically having his band play the song and making new lyrics is just fine. However, directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use. Parody is protected, but that movie is also under copyright, and making a parody where the subtitles are the only original content and everything else is from the copyrighted work is not gonna fly in court.

Re:Unfortunate

[crossmr]

Whose line is it anyway often did that.
Weird Al also always asks permission and won't put it on his CD if asked not to (in the case of pitiful, but he released that for free since Blunt was okay with it but his label wasn't)

Re:Unfortunate

[larry bagina]

The videos are using one scene, not the entirety. And people watch the videos *for* the subtitles.

Re:Unfortunate

[fyrewulff]

He only does that because he's a nice guy though. Legally he could put any of his parodies on his CDs if he wanted to.

Re:Unfortunate

[pookemon]

It's pretty easy really. "Fair Use" - is where the author/creator/distributor/publisher is making shite loads of money.

Re:Unfortunate

[cpt kangarooski]

making a parody where the subtitles are the only original content and everything else is from the copyrighted work is not gonna fly in court.

It doesn't matter, for the purpose of determining fair use, how much additional material was added. Rather, it depends on how much of the underlying work was used, and how important that portion was to the underlying work. Your criterion is often invoked by infringers who legitimately claim that because they added so much to the portion used, their use was fair, and is just as often rejected by the courts, who don't care about that.

In any event, this isn't "the entirety of the video from 'The Downfall.'" The Hitler scene is just one part -- albeit a rather powerful part -- of an entire movie about the last days of the Nazis in Berlin during the war.

Of course, the thing that might trip them up is the ridiculous dividing line that the courts have been drawing between parody and satire. When a use is a parody, it makes fun of the underlying work itself, and therefore must draw at least somewhat from that underlying work, in order to come about. It is essentially commentary that ridicules the work, or is at least itself ridiculous. Imagine, for example, making fun of Mickey Mouse and Disney by having the Sorcerer's Apprentice scene from Fantasia involve Mickey summoning up a destructive horde of copyright attorneys. (We are indeed capable of reproducing by fragmentation; fear us) That could be a parody.

Satires, however, are making a point about society generally, or at least about something other than the underlying work. In that case, it doesn't absolutely need to borrow from an underlying work, and the courts have not been as generous to satire as they have been to parody. For example, there was a case in which someone was making fun of the OJ Simpson trial by using Dr. Seuss characters and artwork. Because the use wasn't commenting on the used material, but just borrowing it for an unrelated purpose (unless OJ was right, and the murderer was the Lorax or something), it wound up not being a fair use.

Now, I think this is a dumb distinction. The main issue should be whether the use is transformative, even if it doesn't 'need' to use the underlying work (although a showing of necessity should count for something, considering other doctrines, such as merger, where it is also relevant), along with the rest of the fair use analysis, in particular, the fourth factor (harm to the market for the underlying work). But that's what we're stuck with at the moment. And since most of the Downfall videos (though not all -- the one where Hitler is upset about how many Downfall videos there are would seem to be okay, ironically) don't make fun of anything that requires the use of Downfall in order to do it, things may not go well.

Now, how long until someone follows up on this, does a bit of research, and has Hitler upset about this particular aspect of Fair Use under US copyright law, citing the statute and caselaw? Perhaps Generals Keitel, Jodl, Krebs, and Burgdorf (the four guys that he has stay in the room) could each stand for one of the four prongs of the analysis?

Re:Unfortunate

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However, directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use.

Nobody is using the entirety of the video. They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.

Re:Unfortunate

[mabhatter654]

Weird Al is still part of the "system" and doesn't have anything to do with Fair Use... He's on a big label and can get rights to whatever he wants. Remember MOST performers on the radio DON'T write their songs, and the "company" often owns them anyway. The company can license to whoever they want..."NOW", Kidz Bop, etc. The "performer" has nothing to say because they signed over ownership. What company executive is going to pass up easy money if Weird Al wants to riff on a song!

Re:Unfortunate

[Xeno man]

Just because you haven 't seen the movie your self doesn't make a 4 minuet clip the entire movie. It's a 3 hour film.

Also it doesn't matter how much of the original work is used, different subtitles change the entire context of the clip and there for is protected under fair use.

Re:Unfortunate

[xtracto]

It was funny at the the first 100 videos... after that it really got old.

Granted, there are some which are quite good and show good imagination on part of the creators

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

It sucks that we don't have a solid litmus test for fair use that doesn't require litigation.

If I understand it correctly, fair use, by definition, requires litigation.

Fair use is legally not defined as a right, but as an affirmative defense against a charge of infringement.

That is, you have to have already pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of, infringement before asserting the defense. You don't just get to say at the outset, "I'm going to plead fair use, so there's no point in going forward with a trial."

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but if you don't think the possibility of a lawsuit crossed his producers' minds, you are a certified moron. The root post is correct, that sort of parody is not black and white enough to make it a risk-free endeavor.

Re:Unfortunate

[msclrhd]

Four words: RTFA.

Re:Unfortunate

[Ihmhi]

a) Weird Al takes an existing item (the instrumental track) and adds his own bit to it (his lyrics).

b) The Downfall vids take an existing item (the video clip) and add their own bit to it (the subtitles).

How is a in any way different from b?

Re:Unfortunate

[mcvos]

I read an interview with the director of Der Untergang where he said that he liked all those Untergang parodies. Not every filmmaker has his pivotal scene become such a big internet meme, and he was very flattered by that, and tried to watch every one of them.

Clearly he's not the one who calls these shot.

Re:Unfortunate

[91degrees]

Legally the labels would still be entitled to take legal action. They'd most likely lose but Weird Al presumably doesn't want to deal with the hassle.

Re:Unfortunate

[91degrees]

Not quite.

You can use it as a defence if someone bring proceedings against you but you don't have to have had a ruling against you already. Fair use is an explicit argument you can make that invalidates the copyright infringement argument.

A typical defence would be "I didn't use any copyrighted material". It would be up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that you did. If this is demonstrated you can then make the argument that it is fair use but you actually need to demonstrate that rather than have the plaintiff demonstrate that it isn't.

Re:Unfortunate

[haystor]

There is nothing stopping the people making the videos from creating those scenes themselves...except that they don't want to put forth the effort. The sole reason they take the video from somewhere else is to save themselves the effort of producing quality work. Copying it has nothing to do with parody or satire, it is about creating the video and voice for the video.

A more blurry line might be if they recreated the scene themselves using the text from the movie, but even that was written by someone (I don't believe it was captured in the minutes). Still, they would be using the work of someone else instead of doing work they could be doing themselves.

This is different from parody, exactly as you mention above. If they were making a parody of Downfall, they would need to have enough from Downfall that it would be recognizable. Their specific requirements for these videos is to have an infuriated Hitler railing on about something, this doesn't require Downfall at all.

That said, I'm curious how sales of the movie have gone since these videos started appearing. The scene is remarkably well done, and I've nearly purchased it myself but decided not to because of the family killing scene which I just couldn't watch.

Re:Unfortunate

[Demonantis]

I don't think original content is a complete litmus test either. People have used no original content on fair use items. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo It will always be the unclear until tested by courts system thing it is.

Re:Unfortunate

[haystor]

Weird Al parodies the existing item.
Downfall videos mock something else.

Weird Al gets permission from the songwriters and reproduces it.
Downfall videos don't get permission and don't reproduce the scene.

Weird Al replaces the lyrics, which is half the sound.
Downfall videos leave the video and sound intact and add subtitles.

Everyone involved in producing sound and video for Weird Al gets paid.
The people who did 99% of the work on the Downfall Videos don't get paid.

a == b QED

Re:Unfortunate

[Firethorn]

Legally the labels would still be entitled to take legal action. They'd most likely lose but Weird Al presumably doesn't want to deal with the hassle.

They'd most likely lose, and lose so hard that they end up paying Weird Al's legal fees.

Generally the only thing similar is the sound track, and even that's normally at least slightly different. After that it's pure re-make parody.

Weird Al is a nice guy.

Re:Unfortunate

[ciderVisor]

Weird Al recreates the backing track in his studio. The downfall parodies do not restage the scene with different actors.

That's one way a is different from b.

Re:Unfortunate

[fyrewulff]

No, the reason he asks permission is to be (a) a nice guy, and(b) being a nice guy gives makes the musicians more open to letting him do stuff like use their actual music video sets for the parodies and other cool things.

Re:Unfortunate

[ciderVisor]

a != b, surely ???

Re:Unfortunate

[delinear]

Not only that, if we say the litmus test is, "will the existence of this derivitive piece of work in any way detract from people wanting to enjoy the original", the answer is a clear no. If anything, quite the reverse, you can't buy the kind of publicity that Youtube users have gifted to this movie (well, you can but it would cost a hell of a lot more money than the producers would ever recoup).

Re:Unfortunate

[delinear]

That's technically four letters, or one acronym.

Re:Unfortunate

[delinear]

I would argue that it is exactly the powerful nature of that scene in the original movie, juxtaposed against some ridiculous dialogue (either because it's not "of the time" - Hitler discussion iPads, etc, or because he's discussing something stupidly trivial) that gives rise to the humour, and therein is the parody. Of course, now the scene has been repeated so many times, that in itself is almost becoming the parody - how very post-modern!

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

What company executive is going to pass up easy money if Weird Al wants to riff on a song!

Eminem's record company, for one. But as others with far more knowledge of how parody laws work have already pointed out, above, it's only because Al is a Really Nice Guy that he bothers to get permission from anyone for his parodies. It has nothing to do with "the system" ... maaaan.

Re:Unfortunate

[nacturation]

Let's see:

a) Weird Al takes a portion of the audio track and overlays his own original audio and replaces the video portion with his own original re-performance.

b) Downfall videos take the entirety of the audio track and the entirety of the video track and simply overlays subtitles. Nothing at all is an original recording. They might as well show the original unaltered Downfall clip on one side and have a second video that plays beside it showing the subtitles.

A parody should mock the original work. The Downfall subtitle videos, while amusing, fall more into the camp of a derivative work as the subtitles do not poke fun at the original movie.

Re:Unfortunate

[delinear]

When was that ever a requirement for fair use? If a kid makes a photocopy of a newspaper front page for a school project, that's fair use, the kid doesn't have to set up their own printing press in the garage and reproduce the type-setting, etc.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly he's not the one who calls these shot.

Well, think of the thousands of people who saw the original scene because of the parody, were drawn in by Bruno Ganz's amazing performance, and then went ahead and watched the full movie.

If I was the director, I'd be happy with the amazing viral marketing.

Re:Unfortunate

[tepples]

They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.

True, but that doesn't necessarily make the 4 minutes free to use, especially for purposes other than making a comment on that particular film or its authors.

Re:Unfortunate

[haystor]

Correct. I was mostly mocking the parent post's attitude that it was obvious the two were equal.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

can we get a parody using Strauss?

Re:Unfortunate

[b4dc0d3r]

Weird Al is parodying the original song in most cases, not just making up different lyrics. There's a big difference, and that's what lets him continue, while Don Henley sued Chuck DeVore for making up different lyrics to one of his songs and using it for a campaign. Below is DeVore's response, but you can search for the rest.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cdevore/2010/04/05/henley-lawsuit-update/

It's not objective, and Weird Al sometimes blurs the line. The difference is, Weird Al asks for permission (which he does not have to do if it's objectively a parody*). Once given permission, it doesn't matter whether it's a parody, he has permission.

"Bad" by Michael Jackson became "Fat" by Weird Al. Not only did the music video make it very obvious he was making a parody of Jackson, he even made fun of MJ's vocal inflections. Something that sounded like "Ja-mo", which was probably an out-of-breath version of "you know it", became "Ham-on, ham-on, ham on whole wheat" in Al's version. That's as clear of a parody as you can get, and if only one of Al's songs is protected that one is it.

Now, sometimes he just makes up random words that kinda sound similar, and it's not clearly parody, so a judge would have to decide. But he has permission.

Don't agree with me? Fine, but I'm spending energy to convince you otherwise, so do a little reading on differing opinions. I just gave you the *opposite* opinion above, feel free to read Don Henley's take on it.

Downfall parodies are about taking an actor's most intense scene in the film, start to finish, unedited, and with the original sound. It's not the entirety of the movie, but it is a pivotal moment. On the other hand, the ones I have seen are pretty funny. They do a good job contrasting the seriousness of the Third Reich and all of the problems caused by Hitler's drive with what the world might be like for him today. It's not a great defense, and it's not clear, and it's not Weird Al.

If you re-acted the whole thing verbatim and put subtitles on *that*, it's more clearly fair use. But only a judge can decide, since the law isn't clear, and nobody asked for permission.

Re:Unfortunate

[Scrameustache]

directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use.

Running time 156 minutes (original cut)
178 minutes (extended cut)

Length of the extract used for obvious parody: About four minutes ( example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/hitler-finds-out-that-dow_n_545836.html ).

So, no, 4 is not the entirety of 156. It's about 2.5% of the entirety of "The Downfall".

Re:Unfortunate

[Scrameustache]

They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.

True, but that doesn't necessarily make the 4 minutes free to use, especially for purposes other than making a comment on that particular film or its authors.

Taking a dramatic scene about an important historical event and making it silly is a comment.

And anyawy, the wording of the fair use part of the US copyright is not a complete list, but examples: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Re:Unfortunate

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Which article, and where in the article, were these issues addressed? Sure, the FA's keep calling the videos parodies, but they don't say why they're parodies of the work they use, nor do they distinguish them from satires, given the difference between the two for fair use purposes. Or was it something else you wanted to point out?

Four words just isn't enough, I'm afraid.

Re:Unfortunate

[WRX SKy]

"Parody - to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule or satire."

Sounds like fair use to me.

Re:Unfortunate

[cpt kangarooski]

There is nothing stopping the people making the videos from creating those scenes themselves...except that they don't want to put forth the effort.

So? Sweat of the brow -- or lack thereof -- isn't relevant for copyright. Weird Al could surely poke fun at songs without having to recycle their music, merely adding new lyrics. After all, it isn't as though an ordinary music reviewer writes his review out in stanzas, for the reader to sing aloud, when he praises or pans something. That he doesn't do as much work as he possibly could isn't important, just as when we grant copyrights, it doesn't matter if the author worked hard or barely lifted a finger. But he wants to use the song against himself. It's an artistic choice, even if it relieves him of the obligation to compose totally new music, and he has a right to do so. Copyright doesn't get in the way, so long as he doesn't take more than he needs to do that, rather than the bare minimum to make fun of the song in any way at all.

Their specific requirements for these videos is to have an infuriated Hitler railing on about something, this doesn't require Downfall at all.

Well, unless it directly involves Downfall, as I mentioned.

Re:Unfortunate

[91degrees]

Ignoring the legal risks still seems like a bad game theory. Say a publisher sues. It's possible that the court doesn't agree that they pay his legal fees. It's even plausible that somehow the plaintiff finds an argument or a piece of case law or something that means he loses. He's no expert on copyright law so it would be daft for him to rely on that. His best outcome is break even and his worst is to lose heaps of money in legal fees. It wouldn't make sense not to get permission based on this.

Hey, maybe he's a nice guy as well. I hope he is. But there's a perfectly reasonable practical legal reason to clear copyright.

Re:Unfortunate

[mcgrew]

Imagine, for example, making fun of Mickey Mouse and Disney by having the Sorcerer's Apprentice scene from Fantasia involve Mickey summoning up a destructive horde of copyright attorneys.

When Ralph Bashki made Fritz the Cat (the only feature length animated motion picture to ever get rated X by the MPAA), there is a scene where the USAF is bombing and strafing an American Ghetto, with Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy cheering them on and waving an American flag on a rooftop. This was both satire and parody, making a statement about racism and Disney itself.

The wikipedia article doesn't mention that Disney sued for copyright infringement, and won a partial victory -- in the final cut, the Disney characters are shown only in relief.

Re:Unfortunate

[Firethorn]

Ignoring the legal risks still seems like a bad game theory.

Never said there weren't benefits to being a nice guy. ;)

It's even plausible that somehow the plaintiff finds an argument or a piece of case law or something that means he loses.

Al is so far into parodyland it's almost beyond belief that somebody could find against him.

He's no expert on copyright law so it would be daft for him to rely on that.

I'm willing to bet he's got expert advice from his lawyers though. Remember, he's a published artist, you know he's gotta have some people working the copyright end of his work.

His best outcome is break even and his worst is to lose heaps of money in legal fees.

More like 'break even and get lots of free publicity from somebody stupid enough to sue him'.

Re:Unfortunate

[yuna49]

Perhaps you might want to review the four criteria determining whether a fair-use defense can be raised from 17 USC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml):

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

These parodies can all point, at a minimum, to the "substantiality" clause as a defense. They're not using the entire movie, just a clip. They all meet the non-commercial requirement of item (1), and their effect on the commercial value of the film is at least arguable (some may claim it broadened the film's audience). Determining whether a potentially infringing item can be viewed as a fair use of the material is a complex and nuanced process that can only be resolved in a court of law. Automated content matching tools just don't cut it in this arena.

Read Templeton's blog entry for more insight.

Re:Unfortunate

[StikyPad]

The Downfall subtitle videos, while amusing, fall more into the camp of a derivative work as the subtitles do not poke fun at the original movie. A parody should mock the original work.

Hmm, a parody of tyrannical IP enforcement involving Hitler.. wherever will we find source material for that one?

Re:Unfortunate

[HTH NE1]

While those examples don't explicitly state that those purposes have to apply directly to the copyrighted work used, there is a rationale that you shouldn't be shielded from infringing Peter's copyright just because you're using it to criticize Paul.

"Weird Al" Yankovic can make a parody of Michael Jackson's "Bad" about being fat, but you couldn't take Michael Jackson's "Bad" unaltered paired with images of corrupt politicians who have not only evaded punishment but even received awards to criticize them and not be sued by Jackson's estate. (I may be able to describe such a work legally, but not to realize it.)

The "Downfall" satires IM(IANAL)HO would have been fine if they had taken actual archive footage of Hitler, or possibly reenacted the scene themselves, even with nonsense babbling that only sounded vaguely German (consider some covers of "99 Luftballoons") so that they are also ridiculing Hitler, if only by their own original proxy, qualifying as protected parody.

Maybe if someone could come up with a defense based in the art of paraphrasing could the court opinion be swayed. Paraphrasing regularly takes the words of one person and applies them to another situation without the permission of the original person. There has to be tons of examples in literary works.

Re:Unfortunate

[91degrees]

Al is so far into parodyland it's almost beyond belief that somebody could find against him.

Well, his songs are clearly parodies. I'd just be a little wary. His parody isn't always mocking the actual song. Also there's a separate copyright on the music. I'm no expert on this, so I'm unwilling to say this is definitely outside of fair use. I'm just not totally convinced that it's not.

I'm willing to bet he's got expert advice from his lawyers though.

Lawyers are very conservative though. They'll encourage him to err on the side of caution and get permission. Once again, game theory comes in. If their advice to ask permission is wrong it costs them nothing since we have no way of knowing what the alternative would be. If their advice is wrong then they themselves can be sued for giving bad legal advice.

Re:Unfortunate

[Bassman59]

That's technically four letters, or one acronym. </pedant>

Actually, it's an initialism, not an acronym.

Re:Unfortunate

[Scrameustache]

The "Downfall" satires IM(IANAL)HO would have been fine if they had taken actual archive footage of Hitler, or possibly reenacted the scene themselves

The point of fair use is that you use the actual work itself in a manner that is not an infringement. And copyrights also cover choreography and pantomime: Reenacting is NOT fine if you do not act under the fair use umbrella already. Selling a cheap imitation is no more acceptable than an accurate copy.

But those Hitler-reacts videos are satire, they're completely covered under fair use: Non-profit, only 2.5% of the original work, doesn't harm sales of the original (quite the contrary). Removing them en-masse is a clear attack on freedoms of speech and the principles of fair use of copyrighted works.

Re:Unfortunate

[Zerth]

Several of Weird Al's songs do not make fun of the original work.

E.g. "I want to be a Jedi" doesn't really parody the original, it just uses the structure to joke about Starwars. Unlike, say, Amish Paradise clearly poking fun at Gangsters Paradise.

Re:Unfortunate

[nacturation]

Hmm, a parody of tyrannical IP enforcement involving Hitler.. wherever will we find source material for that one?

What you describe is a satire of the current state of IP enforcement and while the satirical elements (subtitles) would be original, that would not be the case for the Hitler video/audio.

Re:Unfortunate

[haystor]

Really? You think that Weird Al could sell a song just lifting the entire track and replacing the words? You don't think he'd have to pay anyone for it?

These Downfall videos were 99+% produced by the makers of Downfall. A requirement of fair use for parody is that only the minimum amount required be taken. Well, that means *none* of the video/sound need be taken. The creator of the parody can reproduce all of that themselves. Just because they aren't up to that quality of production is no reason to strip the copyright holder's rights.

We seem to agree that it's a moot point in this case because they aren't creating parody of Downfall at all.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Dr Seuss vs Dr Juice incident is interesting, because originally the 'Parody'/'Satire' being Fair Use law [a version the US was using prior to 1976 based on one from the UK] was originally put in by politicians who were using popular songs of their day to ridicule their opponents. The songs weren't written by their opponents and they weren't ridiculing the songwriters or even the songs of the time. So would have been interesting if Penguin books had of dug up some of the previous cases prior to 1976 (which was when the US codified the 'Fair Use' into the Copyright laws. Prior to this is was a common law and was based upon the UK version) to see if they could have convinced the court that the 1976 codification was really just a clarification of the previous common law. Therefore, any previous case (prior to 1976) which parodied someone or something other than the work or the creator and was considered 'fair use' could have been used in the defence. Would have been interesting to see if it made a difference.

Re:Unfortunate

[omglolbah]

WLIIA used movies that are in public domain for their "voice-over" runs.

If you have seen a lot of MST3K you'll recognize a lot of them ;)

Re:Unfortunate

[cpt kangarooski]

A requirement of fair use for parody is that only the minimum amount required be taken. Well, that means *none* of the video/sound need be taken. The creator of the parody can reproduce all of that themselves. Just because they aren't up to that quality of production is no reason to strip the copyright holder's rights.

Of course, then the parodist might not be able to convey his commentary about the work. His half-assed staging of the scene might be so bad, so unrecognizable, that no one would be able to figure out what the video was about.

And what if we applied your rigorous standards for the amount used elsewhere? The Daily Show routinely shows clips of politicians, news commentators, and other people saying one thing, then contradicting themselves (or being contradicted) elsewhere. Well, technically it isn't absolutely necessary that those clips be run in order to make a point about hypocrisy or stupidity or whatever. Jon Stewart could just quote his target's first statement, and then quote the second statement. No video or audio clips needed. Of course, this would drastically undercut the power of what he's doing. And if you were disinclined to believe him, but would believe video footage, his ability to comment on the news at all and reach his audience might evaporate.

And that needn't be limited to a news comedy show. Straight news programs -- if they're doing their jobs right -- also have good reason to use footage without authorization, in order to expose official wrongdoing or bad behavior.

Frankly, I think you're going way too far. So long as the material isn't used in a totally gratuitous fashion, and there is a real fair use involved, I don't think that the fact that less might have been used is an appropriate artistic choice for a court to impose upon an author, especially when you consider how extreme the penalties for infringement are.

We seem to agree that it's a moot point in this case because they aren't creating parody of Downfall at all.

It doesn't have to be a parody of Downfall, it has to be a parody that requires the use of Downfall. A Downfall video where Hitler rants against Downfall videos, or rails against Downfall videos being removed, would probably be fair uses, in much the same way that making fun of the Walt Disney corporation often involves using copyrighted character designs and scenarios from their films, even though their characters and films aren't themselves the targets of the parody.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it will "fly in court" as fair use.

See, it's fair use because it's a low resolution copy, and it's a very small portion of the work taken as a whole, which is a component of fair use. It's also not being used for profit (another component) and being used for parody.

But don't just listen to me, from Wikipedia here's a quote from an actual attorney: "As explained by Corynne McSherry, an attorney specializing in intellectual property and free speech issues[21] for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "All the [Downfall parody videos] that I've seen are very strong fair use cases and so they're not infringing, and they shouldn't be taken down."[22]"

JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is just how it started in Nazi Germany, with the removal of youtube videos!

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[DurendalMac]

First they came for the Youtube videos, but I didn't speak up because I don't have any Youtube videos...

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[The Redster!]

Then they came for the ISP's, but I did not speak up because

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the fascists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a fascist.

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

See, this is just how it started in Nazi Germany, with the removal of youtube videos!

No, that was "JewTube".

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the fascists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Republican.

FTFY.

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[shutdown -p now]

That's why I do speak up when they come for the fascists.

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!

[delinear]

First they came for the "First they came for" meme quoters, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a "First they came for" meme quoter... oh, bugger.

Uh-oh!!

[Pike]

Wait till Hitler finds out about this!!! woooooohhh boy!!

Re:Uh-oh!!

[nine-times]

Yeah, he's pretty pissed.

Re:Uh-oh!!

[poena.dare]

He has. Cue links to Hitler as a Meme video...

Re:Uh-oh!!

[skine]

Apparently he's not happy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAQKa8rU_4&feature=related

Re:Uh-oh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole Jew thing was bad enough, but now he's consistently making their/they're errors? I must say my esteem of him has been lowered.

Re:Uh-oh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite is this one.

I love the way they worked in the mention of "Stalin".

And there are so many. "I use Windows XP for !#$!$%! sake!"

BBC already wrote good article on this

[Speare]

The BBC article on "The Downfall" viral video craze.

A good summary of the whole story of the meme before the YouTube action.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Botched]

Is meme now a buzzword? Because I'm failing to see how this in any way qualifies as one.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, meme is now a meme; memes are the new buzzwords.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[mirix]

something posted in 5000 different iterations on the internet, with dream of humour = meme, no?

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Botched]

No. A meme is not a fashion or a fad. Fad is the proper term.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[adbge]

No. A meme is not a fashion or a fad. Fad is the proper term.

The term Internet meme, pronounced meem, is used to describe a concept that spreads quickly via the Internet.[1] The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been on the internets all this time?

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Peach Rings]

The word is only 30 years old; it doesn't make any sense to pedantically insist on an exact definition.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[ppanon]

As the description says, a meme is a concept or an idea, preferably one that provides insight or a new way of doing things. Now if the original poster had said Internet Meme, then you might have a point, but only meme was used.
"Let's make parodies of Hitler having a spaz" is pretty weak as ideas go. It's pretty derivative of MST3K (which goes back to the late 80s before either the Internet or the use of the word meme became mainstream). There's also not much in the way of memetic evolution possible with doing parodies of a clip of a Hitler spaz from a particular movie. Now if making MST3K-style parodies of sequences from movies becomes really common for everything from Gone with the Wind to Monty Python or Adam Sandler movies, then you might have a genuine Internet meme. But this at best qualifies as a memetic codon.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Fast Thick Pants]

It's more What's Up, Tiger Lily? than MST3K.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[Trepidity]

Yes, but you're on the internet, so local namespace dictates that "meme" refers to "internet meme", just like "post" by default refers to "post on a website" rather than "post office".

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[osu-neko]

If one wants to get technical, any fashion or fad has to have a meme behind it, or it would never become a fashion or fad.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[osu-neko]

Well, no, but worse for the complainer, this actually qualifies, even if he doesn't particularly like it. Yes, it'd be nice if it provided insight or a new way of doing things, but that's not what "meme" means, just what "a good meme" might subjectively mean. There are ugly memes too, and plenty of utterly silly ones...

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[stainlesssteelpat]

I'd actually say its current use is pretty close to its intended one. from the oed: A cultural element or behavioural trait whose transmission and consequent persistence in a population, although occurring by non-genetic means (esp. imitation), is considered as analogous to the inheritance of a gene. 1976 R. DAWKINS Selfish Gene xi. 206 The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun which conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme... It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’. Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. 1976 New Scientist 9 Dec. 619/2 A rational person who hasn't acquired any variety of the God meme described by Richard Dawkins. 1986 Canad. Jrnl. Zool. 64 1576 Congruence of the patterns of morphometric and cultural evolution in these islands suggests..that the differentiation has been influenced by a colonization history involving restricted gene and meme flow between archipelagos, subsequent drift, and possibly founder effects. 1993 Wired Feb. 132/2 I'm not sure what happens to such a culture when radical Maoism is replaced by the far more seductive meme of Western consumer culture. 1998 D. BRIN Heaven's Reach 27 On all other dimensional planes, memes could only exist as parasites, dwelling in the host brains or mental processes of physical beings.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[silentcoder]

How the hell is it NOT a meme ?
Meme is defined as an idea that spreads between people.

The hitler videos as various satires and parodies are an idea, that idea has spread widely, gotten wide recognition and been repeatedly reused in new ways - this is not only a perfect example of what a meme IS, it's a perfect example of a highly SUCCESSFUL meme at that.
Remember that memetics deliberately sounds like genetics, and the metaphor in the theory is to think of meme's as a parasitic lifeform. A meme that's highly adaptable and flexible as well as contagious is the most successful (just like a highly mutable virus is the most successful - we still can't cure the common cold because it's never the same two years in a row).

Now gimme my +5 informative darn you :P

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[ppanon]

But I'm on Slashdot, which is News for Nerds, and nerds are all about using jargon and terminology correctly. So the local namespace actually dictates that "meme" by itself refers to the original meaning ascribed by Richard Dawkins. Otherwise there would be no way for nerds to discuss memes in the original context while on the Internet, which is a pretty ridiculous claim since it started as a research network for communicating and developing ideas like memetics. If the use of meme was in an article by a mainstream media reporter or PR flack, then you might have a point, but a site for techies provides expectation of more rigorous semantics.

Hey, at least I didn't ask you to turn in your nerd card.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this

[ppanon]

Goth and grunge cultures are memes. Dressing up in black with pasty skin, or ratty plaids, not so much. As for fashion or fads needing a meme, what's the meme behind miniature dogs in purses, pot-bellied pigs, chia pets, and pet rocks? (apart for the P.T. Barnum saying, which applies to a whole lot more).

Man

[Junior J. Junior III]

When Hitler finds out that YouTube has taken down all the Downfall parody videos, he's gonna be hella pissed!

Re:Man

[nstlgc]

Too late: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAQKa8rU_4

Downfall is a really good movie

[Spasmodeus]

...but difficult to watch if you're squeamish about real-world evil.

The parodies that I've seen, though (of the approximately 700,000 of them on YouTube) are hit and miss, though I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thing that's defensible as fair use.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[OakDragon]

I did watch this movie - on YouTube, 10 minutes at a time!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part is, I never would have heard about the movie(and subsequently bought a copy on DVD) if not for the Youtube parodies. Free advertising? Bah!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[lee1026]

wouldn't this story generate even more free ads?

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[VTI9600]

Yeah! I never would have heard about the movie and subsequently downloaded it from The Pirate Bay if not for the Youtube parodies too!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[masmullin]

The same scene over and over does not count.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Runaway1956]

"Yeah! I never would have heard about the movie and subsequently downloaded it from The Pirate Bay if not for the Youtube parodies too!"

I would ditto that, but I can't quite bring myself to dedicate 12 to 20 hours of bandwidth so that I can watch some movie that I may like or not. I'm sure not going to spend MONEY on it!!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Anonymous Coward]

12-20 hours? What the fuck? I downloaded 12 GB in less than 12 hours, and I'm on a fairly crappy plan. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your torrent settings.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[luke_z3]

Netflix - It's how I can keep up with the movies -- especially those that I would not have otherwise had the chance to see -- and not fill up my limited physical (and hard disk) space with movies I watch once and put away. Downfall *is* good, but I don't feel like I'd be obtaining any more value if I were to purchase my own personal copy of it (or any other movie).

Side note: For people like me that don't care about "bonus features" like director commentary in movies, streaming video is where it's at. I'm trying to do my part to support those services, especially since I don't have to sit through movie previews before getting to the content like I would if I had purchased a DVD or Bluray.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Toonol]

You're really that amazed that somebody might have only (*gasp*) half or three-quarters your bandwidth?

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Anonymous Coward]

...but difficult to watch if you're squeamish about real-world evil.

It's difficult to watch because it's boring. These "pseudo-highbrow Nazi criticism/awareness" movies are probably as boring and repetitive to Germans as "in the hood" movies to US Americans; which is quite the irony when you think about it.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Well, the problem is that, aside from fiddling with the subtitles, you more or less have the scene untouched. For anyone who can understand german, for example, this scene is pretty much the same as its full release. Yes, it is definitely parody, but the parody could easily be used as a substitute for the original scene.

Of course, you'll notice that I say "scene", not "movie". On the length argument alone, it's only a few minutes, which is, I don't know, 2.5% of the total running time? It's hardly a substitute for the movie.

However, I maintain that, if it were the whole movie with funny subtitles, then there would be some legitimate cause here.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Side note: For people like me that don't care about "bonus features" like director commentary in movies, streaming video is where it's at.

FWIW: Of all the common "bonus features" additional tracks like commentaries, picture-in-picture video, and "pop-up" trivia (which are just fancy subtitles) are particularly easy to implement for streaming video. That they haven't done so is (hopefully) just an oversight. Those stupid little java games and what-not that you occasionally find on discs generally don't fit the model so well.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[thomst]

It is, indeed.

My favorite part is the flashback sequence where he's interviewing the woman who will become his private secretary - but it's his interaction with, and obvious doting affection for, his dog that makes the scene so powerful, because it humanizes him without resorting to any heavy-handed, "Now we're going to show the insane, demonic dictator's softer side," manipulativeness.

Great scene, great movie, lousy translation of the title. Were it me, I'd've called it, "Going Under", which is a more literal translation of the German, and which preserves the pun, too. (The film is about Hitler's last days in his underground bunker during the siege of Berlin by the Red Army.) Anyway ...

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[metacell]

I watched different scenes on Youtube.

Pretty strange movie, though. The actors do the same things over and over, and only the subtitling is different?!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[nacturation]

12-20 hours? What the fuck? I downloaded 12 GB in less than 12 hours, and I'm on a fairly crappy plan. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your torrent settings.

Perhaps the GP only downloads Blu-ray rips? Maybe you need to re-evaluate the criteria for foaming at the mouth, or consider that not all people can sustain over 2 Mbps of download speed through their ISP due to BitTorrent throttling or due to places where such bandwidth plans aren't available.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Runaway1956]

~360k down, ~190k up. If I could afford it, I'd get the 1Mb package, but that's as good as it gets where I live. I'm paying $75/month now, and the rest of that Mb package isn't worth what they're asking for it . . . .

I've heard that people in the city can get muliples of that 1Mb package, for less than I'm paying for my 360k. Wow. You guys have it good, huh? I even hear stuff like Gb downloads, but I think those college kids have been smoking some wild stuff, ya know?

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Suzuran]

I absolutely agree, Bruno Ganz's portrayal of Hitler was some of the best acting I have ever seen. It sucks that he can't get awards for it just because of the subject matter. (Supposedly they're scared that praising Ganz for his work will be equated to praising Hitler, which is a load of bullshit.) It's definitely top-grade work and he deserves high recognition. I very rarely buy DVDs but I went out of my way to get this one. It's well worth it.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the YouTube parodies are really amazing if they allow you to download from The Pirate Bay...

Where can I find YouTube parodies allowing me to download from The Pirate Bay?

Re:Downfall is a really good movie

[Alex Belits]

...but difficult to watch if you're squeamish about real-world evil.

It's Slashdot -- every second story here is about Microsoft, Adobe, Sony, MPAA, RIAA, etc.

(Would this be a REVERSE GODWIN -- mentioning modern non-Nazi-related evil entities in a Hitler-related discussion?)

Hitler finds out that...

[cntThnkofAname]

ich ein berliner

Re:Hitler finds out that...

[Anonymous Coward]

ich ein berliner

You're a doughnut? Come to daddy...

Re:Hitler finds out that...

[gyrogeerloose]

You're a doughnut? Come to daddy...

More like a cheese Danish, I think.

Re:Hitler finds out that...

[osu-neko]

Watashi ha jere donatsu desu.

Re:Hitler finds out that...

[metacell]

It's "Ich bin ein Berliner", which, literally, means "I'm a citizen of Berlin". Less literally, it can be interpreted as "I'm a Berliner doughnut", since those are sometimes called "Berliner". However, in the context that J.F. Kennedy uttered the phrase, it's perfectly clear that "Berliner" has the more literal meaning.

There's a German city called Hamburg, and it's perfectly fine to say "Ich bin ein Hamburger".

my collection is the most extensive

[Anonymous Coward]

please support my channel:

http://www.youtube.com/hitlerscollection

Well what does the director have to say about it?

[yamamushi]

This is rather stupid, considering the director of Downfall watches them and likes them. In fact, in his own words "I think I've seen about 145 of them! Of course, I have to put the sound down when I watch. Many times the lines are so funny, I laugh out loud, and I'm laughing about the scene that I staged myself! You couldn't get a better compliment as a director." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/the_director_of_downfall_on_al.html

MS Flight SImulator X parody

[syousef]

There use to be an MS Flight Simulator X parody that was roll over on the floor hilarious with a constant stream of in jokes about the frustrations of Flight Simulator enthusiasts with the last, initially buggiest (still not all bugs resolved) and resource hungry version of the simulator. On initial release you had to do all sorts of tweaking to get a usuable system. Two service packs and an addon pack later it was more usuable but still many hobbiests were divided between FS2004 (the previous version) and FSX. Nothing quite like watching Hitler going off his nut with subtitles about being told the scenery and aircraft addons from the previous version didn't work or bugs that caused you to lose your pilot history.

You have to understand that some hobbiests go to extremes to build their machines, and buy hardware and software for flight simulation like no other game. Not unusual to have an outlay of many thousands on hardware and software. I never quite went very far, but I did build a 3 screen gaming machine with Flight Sim as the primary use, and I do have a couple of expensive joysticks, yoke and rudder peddals. Extreme examples see people building cockpits in a rented warehouse to create a simulator worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with the development team disbanded and Microsoft killing the Flight Simulator franchise that lasted decades, people are STILL releasing addons and there are entire companies of paid developers still working to produce new addons.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody

[h4rr4r]

Why not move to X-plane or flightgear?
Seems like a better solution for players and the developers that want to make addons for them.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody

[syousef]

Wow! Something totally un-MS related and some fucktard still finds a way to slip it into the conversations. What a fucking zealot.

Actually I wrote extensively against Microsoft's DRM on FSX in number of places including the MS Flight Sim newsgroup at the time. It's the second hit if you type in FSX and DRM into Google. I totally hate that they killed off the franchise. Don't let reality get in the way of your anonymous name calling though.

By the way you should get a refund on your education. You clearly fail comprehension: You don't understand how a parody of FSX based on a movie is related to the topic of parodies of that movie.

You, sir, make those Jehovah Witness kooks look like mere amateurs.

Well lets insult a religious group as well as a tech company while simultaneously ranting about a post being off topic. I sincerely hope you're trolling because otherwise you are just too stupid for words.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody

[syousef]

Why not move to X-plane or flightgear?
Seems like a better solution for players and the developers that want to make addons for them.

Many many reasons
- They are STILL not as sophisticated or feature complete. Some of it is extreme. Joystick support is still not as easy as it should be in Flightgear.

- Momentum - not nearly as many addons now means its harder to get the ball rolling

- Both simulators keep changing even in minor releases. Makes it difficult for part time content creators to keep up, and less worthwhile when you know a new version will break it. Well FSX isn't fantastic for backward compatiblity - one of many mistakes, but FS2004 runs most FS2002 planes, and often only minor changes are needed to get an FS2004 plane to work in FSX

- Small changes and tweaks are very easy in FS2004 compared to X-Plane or Flight Gear. Everything but the physical model - from effects to air traffic, even scenery is somewhat easier in FS2004. Repainting is relatively easy too.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these parodies should be in the Smithsonian.

Constantin Films, just like any other company run by idiots, certainly enjoys the free hosting of their movie trailers and whatever else they have to promote their stupid movies.

this is the what intellectual property means:

[circletimessquare]

the impoverishment of our culture

no story, no art, is ever original. it all borrows or reinvents or reinterprets something that came before. and if the thread of our cultural output is artificially taxed strained and stamped out for demands for cash, then all of us, all of our lives, are less rich for that

maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement. instead, imagine all the culturally relevant art that we will never see and can never see the light of day because a greedy selfish system would rather lock art behind lock and key, where it earns no cash, rather than let it get out there and bloom, and create more art, and create more COMMERCE

art, music, movies, all creative output has the unique property of being richer when it is allowed to flow freely and freely intermingle. why do we have to lead less rich cultural lives only because some fucking trolls in the bank vault can't see that? that if there were no such thing as intellectual property, the ancillary streams they could tap in the free flow of cultural output would be richer sources of cash than their feeble and failed approaches to control what they cannot and will never be able to control?

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[Sperbels]

maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement.

Too true. Youtube and these parodies must have driven rentals and sales of the DVD through the roof.

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Indeed. After I peed myself laughing at the "Blu-Ray beats HD" version, I went out and bought TWO copies of the movie, one for me, and one for my mother-in-law, who was in the Hitler Youth and worked as a German air traffic controller during the war. She swears it's the damnedest thing she's ever seen. The first time we watched it with her, we ended up listening to three hours of stories afterwords.

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[gyrogeerloose]

Youtube and these parodies must have driven rentals and sales of the DVD through the roof.

Worked on me.

Legally, the producers are probably within their rights to have the parodies pulled but the loss of all that free publicity--not to mention the loss of of goodwill--is going to do them more harm than good. It's not like the parodies were hurting them; no one failed to rent or buy the movie because of a YouTube parody. Just the opposite, in fact. I'd never heard of Downfall until the parodies started showing up. I ended up renting it just to see what the real dialog was.

(BTW, IMHO, I didn't think the movie was all that great. Too long, for one thing. It needed an editor.)

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[PitaBred]

Posts like this deserve more than +5

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'll admit that intellectual property kills culture a little bit. Right after you admit that unbridled sharing kills culture a lot more.

Besides, as you pointed out, leaving these clips up could be a form of advertisement. The only problem is if the free advertisement ends up being a substitute for the non-free whole package. So, the concept of intellectual property, and sharing small portions (or small parodies) of the work, are far from mutually exclusive.

that if there were no such thing as intellectual property, the ancillary streams they could tap in the free flow of cultural output would be richer sources of cash than their feeble and failed approaches to control what they cannot and will never be able to control?

Hmm. So you're saying, if artists have the option to try to make money off their works via copyright, they will be worse off than if you tell them what to do? That's an interesting philosophy.

I would rebut your conjecture by saying that I know better than you what to think, and thus it's about time for your frontal lobotomy, don't you agree? Of course you do. Because I say you should.

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[L4t3r4lu5]

Anybody else think we're moving into an era similar to pre-Renaissance Europe? High quality education and high art for the elite and rich, "No Child Left Behind" dumbed-down bare-basic education and low-brow comedy for the underclasses.

Bring on the second Renaissance!

Re:this is the what intellectual property means:

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you finally took off the link to that crap film that was never produced. I told you it was pure fail. I'm just happy you finally came to those terms.

Bad Example

[VTI9600]

I like the EFF and all, but its a little hard to take them seriously considering the example video they use in TFA. Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles

Re:Bad Example

[russotto]

Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

I'm pretty sure the production qualities of the original are not a factor in determining fair use. There's amount and substantiality of the part of the work used (which is based on the whole movie, not the clip), effect on market for original work (zip or net positive), purpose of use, and nature of the work. Parody is an especially strong fair use; things have been found to be fair use when they used substantially all of the work allegedly infringed. The example video had all four factors in its favor.

It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles

It woulod be more like you taking 10 minutes of Avatar and changing the subtitles in a somewhat cleverer way than that. You should do it; Avatar cries out for it in spots. If I were doing it I'd concentrate on the idea that the Na'vi were somehow totally superior because they were all hooked into the ecosystem, yet it's the humans were the ones who could travel in space, grow new bodies, and teleoperate them. Or, I might patch in the Aldebarran scene from Star Wars and suggest that's what would have happened shortly after the movie ended.

Re:Bad Example

[Anonymous Coward]

Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

Let's go through the factors:
              1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
It's nonprofit, so this goes in favor of fair use.
              2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
It's a Hollywood movie, so this goes against, but only slightly.
              3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
It's a couple of minutes out of a two hour film, so not very much.
              4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
This is the most important factor. And if one single person watches one of these parodies instead of buying the movie, the infinite improbability drive will send us to the other side of the universe.

Re:Bad Example

[VTI9600]

Basically the EFF said, "Hey Google, you guys are assholes for taking down these completely, obviously non-infringing parodies of this Hitler video." To make their case they gave an example of a work that was most definitely not an original parody of the Hitler video. And more ironically, their video did not actually get taken down. That's why I said it was a bad example.

Obviously, production quality (high or low) does not affect IP rights. I was trying to point out how completely trivial and insignificant the changes that the EFF made to the video actually were, relative to the work that went into producing the original. Whether or not this was a case of fair use, they are criticising Google's system for wrongly identifying infringing content, when in fact, any competent software maker would be hard-pressed to design a system in which the example video they gave would not trigger a false positive.

I can't fathom how that clip did not trigger a false positive in Google's Content ID system since it so clearly resembles the original. If the indication was intentional, then that probably means that Google designed the absolute best system ever. I'm guessing that there was some other reason it fell through the cracks though.

Re:Bad Example

[russotto]

Basically the EFF said, "Hey Google, you guys are assholes for taking down these completely, obviously non-infringing parodies of this Hitler video." To make their case they gave an example of a work that was most definitely not an original parody of the Hitler video.

They gave an example of a work that was a non-infringing parody of the Hitler video. It was an "original parody" as well, in that Templeton did the parody himself.

And more ironically, their video did not actually get taken down.

Err, yes it did; it's back up because Templeton filed a protest.

I was trying to point out how completely trivial and insignificant the changes that the EFF made to the video actually were, relative to the work that went into producing the original.

Which is simply irrelevant. The amount of the work used is relevant, but the amount of work the parodists put in compared to the authors of the work being parodied is not.

Whether or not this was a case of fair use, they are criticising Google's system for wrongly identifying infringing content, when in fact, any competent software maker would be hard-pressed to design a system in which the example video they gave would not trigger a false positive.

EFFs objection appears to be of any sort of automated takedown system _at all_: "If copyright owners want to block remix creativity, they should have to use a formal DMCA takedown notice (and be subject to legal punishment if they fail to consider fair use), rather than a coarse automated blocking tool. "

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[je ne sais quoi]

I wouldn't worry about this. Youtube very happily takes down whatever, but just go back in a few weeks and it's up again. Just off the top of my head, here's a clip about Ron Paul that Fox had taken down, there are a multitude of Simpson's clips up there now and for a long time when youtube first started those were all being taken down, and IIRC at one point musicians or the RIAA were forcing people to take down homemade music videos that people had posted. Eventually whoever is issuing the notices will get tired and give up. Sure you can try to do this, but it's a lot like trying to keep the tide from washing your sand castle away, it's a hopeless battle.

By the way, I saw this movie in the theater for a foreign film festival. It made it all the more funny to see the viral videos start popping up since I remembered the scene vividly and it's a pretty powerful movie. Although, I saw it with a German girl and her comment was that Hitler movies were passe in germany since so many had been made. I thought it was good though.

Hitler's video got removed?

[Cryacin]

That's rough, and on his birthday nonetheless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

Re:Hitler's video got removed?

[Mitchell314]

No, I think there are some people who are nicer who had content about them removed. At least I'm pretty sure there are - I don't know of any specific cases though.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Joeseph64]

This is rather stupid, considering the director of Downfall watches them and likes them. In fact, in his own words "I think I've seen about 145 of them! Of course, I have to put the sound down when I watch. Many times the lines are so funny, I laugh out loud, and I'm laughing about the scene that I staged myself! You couldn't get a better compliment as a director." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/the_director_of_downfall_on_al.html

Well... The article also ends with the director saying "If only I got royalties for it, then I'd be even happier." But removing the videos from youtube wouldn't help him with getting royalties, so yeah. It is rather stupid. He'll probably get less money now since the videos were essentially free advertising for the movie.

Why not Godwined? Why the apostrophe?

[newdsfornerds]

It's a damn good movie. Bruno Ganz in the man. That role too some courage.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[je ne sais quoi]

Just to emphasize my point. The version linked to in the Parent's post about Hitler finding out that Michael Jackson is dead is taken down, but a quick search of "hitler michael jackson's death" yields one that has been missed and is still there (I don't know if it's the original though).

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The article also ends with the director saying "If only I got royalties for it, then I'd be even happier." But removing the videos from youtube wouldn't help him with getting royalties, so yeah. It is rather stupid.

Doesn't youtube have a revenue-sharing system for MAFIAA-sourced content? I know that some stuff they take down saying that the MAFIAA told them to block it and some stuff they tell you (when you post it) that its OK because they have some sort of agreement with the copyright owner of the original materials.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

To continue with my point (I hit submit instead of preview) - I bet the reason the director can't get any royalties is because his contract with the studio doesn't mention youtube clips so the studio gets to keep any money generated all for themselves. That's the kind of bullshit that "hollywood accounting" is famous for.

sounds like a bad business decision

[ffflala]

Sure, hardly anyone posting a youtube vid will be interested in licensing the scene. It's short sighted to consider only that aspect, and think of it as lost revenue. This meme is a big one. If properly nurtured, it could ensure future rental revenue in the way that only cult movie status can.

I also only --and legally-- rented the movie after watching the Xbox Live parody. The movie was a large international success upon its release, but it didn't make my radar. The parodies are can be so funny because the banality of the fake subtitles is so incongruent to the remarkably powerful acting.

My thought process went from "this is hilarious" to "wow what a great scene... I need to watch this movie".

Re:sounds like a bad business decision

[poena.dare]

Just this minute I showed my GF a Downfall parody. It was her first. The first thing she said after it was over was "Wow, that looks like Downfall is an interesting movie. We should get it."

I can only conclude the the guy that thought Takedowns for Downfall was the same guy who thought "New Coke" was a good idea.

Re:sounds like a bad business decision

[bsane]

I can only conclude the the guy that thought Takedowns for Downfall was the same guy who thought "New Coke" was a good idea.

You're right if you mean pure genius! Both are free advertising on top of free advertising. I had never heard of Downfall until they sent their takedown notices, now I've watched this parody _and_ I kind of want to watch the movie.

Re:sounds like a bad business decision

[codeButcher]

I kind of want to watch the movie

I found it an interesting movie because it does not parody the Nazis and the Nazi era like about every America movie I've ever seen about the subject, starting with Raiders of the lost ark. It shows Hitler and co. as humans, with a thin line between acceptable behaviour and monstrosity - just like any joe sixpack - which I think is closer to the truth and sends a more powerful warning that the portrayals of them as inhuman monsters ("which would never happen to us normals").

Disclaimer: I've been able to watch it sans subtitles due to grandparents, but since they emigrated before the second world war I do not experience the same guilt about my German ethnicity like contemporary citizens of the German, Austrian and even (German-speaking) Swiss states. Not being in Europe also shields me from much of the European-generated content about the subject, but unfortunately not from the American content.

Mine's still up

[Anonymous Coward]

I received a "Notice of potential infringement" from YouTube very soon after posting this one a week ago. The video, which had initially been accessible, was pulled from the site.

There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law." I'm actually not sure if you can play the fair-use card when using the content owner's IP to mock an unrelated subject, but in any event, the appeal seemed to be accepted by YouTube, because access to the video was restored within a few hours.

So, for what it's worth, if your video gets pulled by Youtube, try filling out the appeal form.

Re:Mine's still up

[Anonymous Coward]

Link or if did not happen!

Re:Mine's still up

[cpt kangarooski]

So it sounds as though you're going to want to read over 17 USC 512(g), which covers this sort of thing.

Long story short, the idea is that if material is taken down due to a DMCA notification, which service providers (including YouTube, given how that term is defined in the law) obey in order to be protected from lawsuits regarding things other people do with their service, it can be put back up in a way that continues to protect the service provider. But the two opposing parties are made aware of each other so that they can hash the issue out in court, possibly with the court ordering that the material be taken down again.

Here's the relevant subsection:

(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.--

(1) No liability for taking down generally.-- Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) Exception.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider--

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.

(3) Contents of counter notification.--
To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

(4) Limitation on other liability.--
A service provider's compliance with paragraph (2) shall not subject the service provider to liability for copyright infringement with respect to the material identified in the notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C).

Re:Mine's still up

[harlows_monkeys]

There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law."

That's a common misconception, largely due to the press doing its usual poor job of reporting Supreme Court decisions (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.). An accurate statement of the law is that parody may be fair use. Basically, the district court said parody was fair use. The appeals court said it wasn't. The Supreme Court said it could be--it's one of the things you consider when considering that nature of the work, and send the case back down to the district court to try again.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[VTI9600]

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire. As another commenter noted, he's not getting royalties either. So, yeah, I'd probably not care about people distributing my IP without authorization if I had no way to make any more money for it either.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Mashiki]

Parodies are directly protected under fair use. So he can scream and yell about it, but youtube is just proving with an automated system it has no clue.

Glad they got on that before anybody saw them..

[Anonymous Coward]

...next up, the creators of Zero Wing request YouTube take down the All Your Base videos.

Re:Glad they got on that before anybody saw them..

[xtracto]

Yeah, I heard the fat kid that fell to the water was also preparing to DCMA the heck of all those cabrones

Re:Glad they got on that before anybody saw them..

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

*whoosh*

Okay. Just to get that out of the way. Yes, this is a joke post, but, bit of gaming history here.

Toaplan, Zero Wing's developer, went out of business in 1994. Aside from Zero Wing, Toaplan put out some great games. :|

When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I BOUGHT this movie on DVD because I ran into the "Hitler Gets Banned From XBox Live" video on YouTube. I'd never heard of or seen it before, but after I stopped laughing, I realized that the acting was incredible, and I sought to find out what movie it was. A quick google later and I was at WalMart, with the DVD, in a checkout line.

I very rarely buy movies and I don't watch TV, so how do production companies think they're going to reach me? YouTube is free advertising that actually managed to find my eyeballs.

Define: Parody

[GeigerBC]

From Merriam-Webster: Parody - a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. Seems like the example videos with the altered subtitles fits that description to me.

Re:Define: Parody

[VTI9600]

The legal definition of "parody" is:

A form of speech protected by the First Amendment as a "distorted imitation" of an original work for the purpose of commenting on it.

The key words (from both our definitions) are "imitated" and "imitation". The work in question is not an imitation. It is an exact copy with some minor modifications. I should also point out that the work in question was not providing any type of commentary on the original.

Now, there may indeed be some fair use protection provided by the four factors outlined in the law, but nevertheless, this was a bad example that they themselves created. More convincing would have been a true, original parody that was taken down by Google's system.

Re:Define: Parody

[metacell]

However, if the clip is short enough to fall under fair use, it's legal to use it as a basis for your parody, don't you agree?

Corporate interference with Free Speech again...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there's at least one remixed Downfall video on YT that was a serious part of political discussion in Australia ("Alex Hawke Liberal Party Downfall"), and removal of that is interfering with 'Free Speech' in its intended sense. Deleting that video is deleting political history. Bad Thing.

Mirror of "Hitler Finds out his videos are removed

[Anonymous Coward]

is here: http://bit.ly/bDciiN

Parody Is Protected Speech

[SplicerNYC]

At least in the U.S. it is -- not sure about the free speech laws of other countries. These videos are clearly parodies and riffs on the original. In no way are the people who are creating these things portraying themselves as the director of Downfall or the producer of that film. Is the question that they are using a too large portion of it for the parody?

Next up....

[mysidia]

A parody of Hitler reacting to finding out Youtube deleted his video upload?

Or possibly of Hitler finding out people have been posting parodies about him and outraged, demanding his 2nd in command, Mr. Eric Schmidt do something about that.

I'm sure we could think of some way of mocking Google about this, they kind of deserve it, due to their evil, unjustified, indiscriminate takedowns of user content.

Re:Next up....

[dgatwood]

Even better, we need to actually get a group of new people to act out the scene from the movie exactly, then subtitle that. It would be doubly funny because YouTube would have a much harder time pulling the "copyright violation" trump card as an excuse for taking down said criticism, and better, as political speech, it enjoys some of the highest protection the Constitution affords....

Re:Next up....

[mysidia]

Looks like someone's started it :)

Der Untergang

[cosm]

To anybody that hasn't seen this movie, it is a great artistic portrayal of Der Fuhrer in his final days, and provides insightful dialog regarding the mentality of the Reich's higher ups during the final days. It is an extremely dark and gritty movie, but the angle it presents is something alot of American history books and entertainment tend to neglect.

I saw the original movie, Der Untergang, which is its original German name, in my German Studies class in high-school, and recommend it to anybody interested in more than just Godwin's Law. Watch it. Must See.

Re:Der Untergang

[Trapezium Artist]

It is indeed a fantastic film, highly recommended.

Being married to a German, having lived in Berlin for seven years, and with both my kids having been born there, I have long felt that it's absolutely incumbent upon me to really try and understand what happened in 1930s and 1940s Germany, rather than continuing to hide behind the simplistic "we won, you lost, you killed lots of Jews, Germans are bad" attitude that was drummed into most of us growing up in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s.

That's not to condone or forgive anything at all, but it's important that we understand why a deeply civilised nation went so catastrophically off the rails in the first half of the twentieth century, if only to look inwards and ask ourselves, each and every one of us, what would it take for me to go down a similar road. Only then, I believe, can you try and avoid it. Again, it's too trivial to say "never" without thinking about it: we're all human and all capable of extreme actions in extreme circumstances, I believe.

In that regard, Der Untergang is a truly crucial addition to the literature (be it written or visual) on this very important topic.

Re:Der Untergang

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not to condone or forgive anything at all, but it's important that we understand why a deeply civilised nation went so catastrophically off the rails in the first half of the twentieth century, if only to look inwards and ask ourselves, each and every one of us, what would it take for me to go down a similar road. Only then, I believe, can you try and avoid it. Again, it's too trivial to say "never" without thinking about it: we're all human and all capable of extreme actions in extreme circumstances, I believe.

Off the rails? They went from being an economic train-wreck to an industrial, economic and military power that could rival or surpass the US in about 5 years! Your country should go so far off the rails!

To go down a similar road requires only opening your eyes.

  It's not something to try and avoid!

Re:Der Untergang

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for letting us know.

Re:Der Untergang

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Another interesting film, though a tad less historical, is "Max". While the actor playing Hitler wasn't as accurate-looking, he nailed Hitler's passion in the final scenes of the film.

Worth watching

Re:Der Untergang

[Trapezium Artist]

Errr, morally off the rails. As if that wasn't obvious. Corrupt and propagandistic dictatorships can achieve economic and industrial miracles for their own people, I fully accept that. But I do not accept the cost at which it comes, particularly to those who have been chosen as scapegoats against which to rally support.

+1 Correct

[White Flame]

These automatic content detectors CANNOT evaluate whether or not the content is used under Fair Use. AFAICT, they have no copyright-based justification for removal of these videos. If this is in response to anything DMCA-related, the video submitters can strike penalties against YouTube or the complaint party if this is a bogus takedown of protected content, right?

Incidentally, I had no idea what the name of the parodied move was until this /. story. I've wanted to check it out.

Excellent film

[Seth Morabito]

I have to agree with some of the other commenters -- it really is an excellent film. I think it's a testament to how engrossing it is that when I got to the infamous scene, I wasn't distracted or amused by its association with all of the YouTube clips I'd watched, because I was fully engaged with the film and the story by that point.

And yes, I would likely never have seen or even heard of this film without the YouTube parodies. They made at least one DVD sale right here.

Downfall is an incredible movie

[Degro]

The man playing Hitler in that movie does an amazing job. It's very chilling.

EFF's own parody video...

[adbge]

The EFF has a parody video up about this type of thing happening. It seems to have been posted before Youtube started pulling them down, so it's almost prophetic.

The clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzUoWkbNLe8&feature=player_embedded

Re:EFF's own parody video...

[BoberFett]

That was great. I almost burst into tears of laughter at the line about Stallman.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[gman003]

Legally speaking, you're right. That doesn't mean it's the right thing.

Besides, how much money can you really make off of YouTube videos? Not much, I'd wager, for variations on one movie.

Anyone have a link to the Cloud Computing Episode?

[Proudrooster]

First off, this is total spinelessness on Youtube's part. This type of content is CLEARY PROTECTED BY THE PARODY as part of US copyright law. I need to watch the "Hitler Find out his Cloud Applications" episode and never downloaded it. If you have a link or reupload it, please reply to my post.

Coming soon:

[Spy der Mann]

Parody about Hitler complaining at Youtube's stupid copyright policies - in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[nine-times]

Well really it's stupid regardless of what the director has to say. I could imagine the director taking it all very seriously and being upset that people were making fun of his movie or making light of Hitler's actions. Still, forcing these clips to be taken down would be stupid.

These parodies aren't being done for profit. They're not competing with the movie. They're not taking away from the movie. Nobody is going to watch these clips and say, "Well I don't need to see this movie now." This isn't what copyright was created for.

The whole thing might even be covered under the first amendment as parody.

Send them an email and let them know how you feel!

[Proudrooster]

Send them an email and let them know how you feel about the takedown! zentrale@constantin-film.de

In related news...

[Col Bat Guano]

Hitler's relatives sue Constantin films for copyright infringement of his private conversations while in the bunker.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they own the IP!

Tie to Gov't Publication Service, Please?

[Bob9113]

Earlier today I saw this most worthwhile project by Google to publish Government takedowns and data requests:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/20/197254/Google-Enumerates-Government-Requests

Now this article makes me ponder...

Open Letter to Google/YouTube:

I can totally dig that the volume of possible copyright infringement -- and hence the volume of takedown notices -- on YouTube is enormous. So large that automated processing is effectively required to keep compliance costs at a manageable level.

So how about publishing the takedowns? Maybe a CSS feed with just the links to the video pages with the removal notice for starters. If that goes smoothly, perhaps you could work toward publishing the takedown requests and the identities of the requesting agents.

I think it is reasonable for the content-generating community to accept that you are a business with real cost management needs to meet. It would be a nice turnabout to the content-generating community for you to make the data available for us to analyze, to enable us to see if patterns of abuse are developing. Just as copyright infringement effectively becomes a cost you must deal with, takedown abuse also becomes an expense to you. This sort of approach would allow you to crowd-source the analysis and mitigation of such abuse. I am sure there are plenty of fair-use nazis out here who would love to help.

Win/Win my friends, that's what it's all about.

Thanks for your consideration,

Bob

Hitler finds out about the death star.

[RockoTDF]

They haven't pulled mine yet! Maybe my crappy rip has something to do with it, or low view count.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RockoTDF#p/a/u/0/ZTEQmipAvIM

Time to FUCK these bastards over

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrent link:
http://torrage.com/torrent/667ECBE6AEEFBCCE1E971B0AB16D3271EB9F3DC4.torrent

Download it, spread it, send it to everyone you know and discourage anyone from ever buying a legal version of this move. Let's make sure this retarded business moves costs them thousands of times more than they were losing from Youtube paradies.

This is insane

[fragMasterFlash]

Someone tell the producers of The Downfall that they cannot godwin use of the godwin clip. Its like dividing by zero, the consequences are never worth it no matter how badly you want to do it.

420

[plopez]

Seems an appropriate date for this story.

Re:420

[Locke2005]

Yes, those people issuing the downfall notices must have been smoking something...

Re:420

[plopez]

*rimshot*

(my reference of course was Adolf's birthday)

Re

[EntropyMan]

The only reason I ever saw "Downfall" was having seen parodies of this scene on YouTube, then thinking "Damn, that movie looks good!", then adding it to my Netflix queue. I'm very pleased that I saw the movie (it's excellent!), and I never would have if not for these ridiculous parodies.

Re:Re

[RockoTDF]

I can say the same thing for half the bands I listen to as well. It's better for the band to lose a nickel on the album and make a few dollars at the concert I go to later. Does the RIAA care? Nope.

The freedom...

[Lars T.]

to beat a dead horse to a bloody pulp.

Locke2005 needs to look up with irony is.

[7o9]

Irony is not incongruity. Perhaps you can find out what irony means on YouTube, Locke2005.

Re:Send them an email and let them know how you fe

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. I did just that. I intimated that perhaps someone at Constantin might be just a little too fond of der Führer and wanted the videos taken down because they made him seem like a whiny little bitch.

Shooting themselves in their collective foot

[Anonymous Coward]

I never would have thought to pirate their movie off of Bittorrent had I not seen the "Hitler vs. the Phish concert" parody.

This comes at a very bad time

[gyrogeerloose]

Because a parody video of Hitler as Steve Jobs discovering the loss of the iPhone 4G prototype just must be made.

Ironically...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I was aware of this film's existence were the Hitler parodies.
I put it in my Netflix queue after becoming curious, and it was very moving picture.

(Who couldn't have cried when they gave the [b]dog[b] cyanide? *sniff*)

WTF is this article about?

[luckymutt]

I went to this (as its the only one I'm familiar with) and not on is that up and working, but every Hitler Downfall parody linked to on the right was up and working.
WTF? was the OP the only one that had his pulled?

Re:WTF is this article about?

[luckymutt]

In fact, after clicking through related videos, I can't find any that have the "this video is no longer available" (or whatever the wording is) on any Downfall parody.

I thought I'd find you holding his leash

[Hordeking]

The more you tighten your grip, Copyright Dogs, the more content will slip through your fingers.

Re:Mirror of "Hitler Finds out his videos are remo

[Anonymous Coward]

NOT. some sort of voting mechanism, cgi script. bah.

Wow - holy overreacting Batman

[blind biker]

The "Hitler reacts to iPad's release" was one of my all-time favorite parodies. I simply can't believe Youtube removed it. Hey, Google, you're smart guys, this move is wholly out of character.

Re:Mirror of "Hitler Finds out his videos are remo

[adavidw]

So, do you spell your name Sairam or Sariam (it's spelled both ways on your story's page). Doesn't matter, I guess. It'll be gone soon enough.

Lawyers with time on their hands

[Dave Emami]

I'd bet that part of the problem (both in this case, and ones like it) comes from an attorney or an in-house legal department wanting to show that it's earning its pay. As mentioned elsewhere, the director likes the parodies, so this obviously wasn't prompted by him. No one in a strictly-financial part of the company would have started it, either, unless they were monumental idiots, since obviously no one is going to pay a license fee to do one of these parodies. But the legal folks get to put this down on their list of "accomplishments" and point to it during their next salary review or whatnot.

Proposed amendment to the concept of copyright: if it's not cutting into the content creator's revenue, and it's not fraudulently passing itself off as having been made by the creator, then it's not a copyright violation. The whole point of copyright originally was to encourage the creation of content by safeguarding the creators' ability to earn money from it -- not to give them control on how the content is used. Constantin Films should have no more legal right to prevent distribution of these parodies than Stephanie Meyer should have the right to stop me from buying her Twilight books and using the pages as toilet paper.

Re:Who's John Galt (raping)?

[ravenshrike]

Ayn Rand never talked about company owned copyright, IIRC. Now, she did discuss copyright itself, and supported lifetime of author plus 50 years. However, I doubt she would have supported the idea of corporation owned copyright, and if she did, she probably would want it treated as if the author had 'died'. So a corp has 50 years to play with the material.

think about what you're saying, subby...

[dAzED1]

Ironically, I had never heard of this movie before this -- and now I want to watch it.

So now that they've done cease-and-desist orders against parody/humor vids, you want to reward them by watching the video? really?

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists

[Tei]

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Then they came for hitler, and no one is around to help us :-(

Re:THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists

[MarkvW]

Now that is funny, Herr Niemoeller!

The horror of monopoly

[symbolset]

Here is a perfect example of why people hate Microsoft's market monopolies. They acquired a flight simulator company and slaughtered all of the competition with the product by being excellent in the field. For 25 years they made fantastic profits on it, raising an almost impassible barrier to entry for new companies. A thriving ecosystem for third party hardware and software products emerged, from contollers to cockpit simulators to full-blown moving rooms costing tens of thousands of dollars.

And one day, being the last one standing in the field - having created a product that is a fine evolution of consumer flight simulation, they give it up. Not because the product's not making money - it is. Not because there's no market for it - there is. But simply because there's noone left on the field to kill, so they're bored with it.

This should tell you something about the lifecycle of their products. There's not just a bottom end where they kill them off to cut their losses. There's also a top end where they kill them off for excessive success. We saw this with IE too, and a team was reconstituted there only because they were losing market share and control of the user experience of the Internet, which worked against their vertical goal of control of average user experience from server to desktop.

Re:The horror of monopoly

[syousef]

I hate what they did too, but it's not as simple as you say.

First, FSX was a dog. A complete piece of shit. They shouldn't have released it in the form they did. They got greedy. Went from having a kiosk mode for museums to demonstrate the Wright Flyer with to adding activation DRM to a steaming pile of buggy crap that is still too resource intensive for computers years after it is released. People go on and on about how the lead product manger Phil Taylor was a God. Horseshit. He fucked the franchise.

Secondly it was Bill Gate's pet project and had his protection while he was there. Balmer had no such sentimental attachment and couldn't wait to get rid of it.

Re:Happy Birthday Adolph

[Anonymous Coward]

hows the american3p.org going guise?

But the director...

[Amarantine]

...said he LOVES the parodies! Read this on fok.nl (and translated here from dutch).

But it wouldn't help

[91degrees]

we called on YouTube to fix the Content ID system so that it will not automatically remove videos unless there is a match between the video and audio tracks of a submitted fingerprint and nearly the entirety (e.g, 90% or more) of the challenged content is comprised of a single copyrighted work.

Wouldn't have helped in this case. The audio track is unchanged. The video track only has the subtle changes of the subtitles. The content is entirely taken from Downfall (Apart from the subtitles).

Someone parody it!

[dohzer]

Author hadn't heard of 'The Downfall'? Quick, someone make a Downfall parody about it!

Ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, I had never heard of this movie before this — and now I want to watch it.

How's that ironic? Presumably, that's why copyright is enforced: to encourage you to watch and pay for the original stuff.

You made that up

[Anonymous Coward]

> making a parody where the subtitles are the only original content and everything else is from the copyrighted work is not gonna fly in court.

Says who? You?

Let's talk about Shakespeare

[symbolset]

Imagine if you will that Wm. Shakespeare had to contend with modern copyright law. He's only one example - any remembered artist will do. How much of the works of "Bard of Avon" would be permitted under current law? Actually, almost none of it. A sonnet or two. And because his unsourced output was so small we would not know of him at all. England's national poet would have been silenced by copyright law as we know it. Almost all of the stories he retold as plays would now be lost forever because they were derived from bardic tales or previous plays that would have been protected by copyright. We grant him great respect now not because he invented these stories, but because he told them well .

Every play, each story, was derived or influenced - as was common in that day and should be common still - by the bardic tales passed down in oral tradition that today would be protected. It was in his wry telling of these tales, the wit that he added, that made them so durable that we know them still. If he had not retold them in his special way they would be lost to time. Today he would be Disney'd out of his art - as a great many grand geniuses are today being silenced by the tyranny of copyright monopolies.

Every creative person needs to understand and acknowledge the source of their creation, or at least that they've built upon one. And they need to submit to a future where others build upon their work. We call this evolution culture. Modern copyright law admits no such culture. Each of them needs to understand that modern copyright law dooms them to ignominy, as our current masters of culture need new sales to drive their market numbers and this works against literary immortality. It's a Devil's bargain.

And so, breeding a generation devoid of culture we reap what we sow. If kids can't adopt the culture of their parents because they're proscribed from experiencing what it was by copyright law, they will invent their own. These inventions will by necessity be primal. Primitive. Animalistic. That can be art, but it can't be durable art.

So, artists and inventors are actually harmed by the current state of law. They should oppose it as it prevents their art from going viral and being a part of our culture.

By preventing the natural course of social evolution through copyright law, we naturally regress to the primitive at an abhorrent rate. That's not the purpose of copyright enshrined in the US Constitution. The purpose of that clause was to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[wish bot]

My god, well said.

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[haystor]

Bullshit, Hollywood proves that a million rehashes of the same story can coexist.

And for everything he wrote, it was never a matter of what he wrote about, but how he wrote it.

Lastly, he would have probably given us even more good quotes about lawyers and maybe someone would have acted up one of them by now.

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[metacell]

I wish I hadn't wasted all my mod points on modding up "Micro$oft sux!" posts. *sob*

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[natehoy]

Hark! Is this an intelligent post I see before me? I can admire you, yet I have mod points not. Would a +5 Insightful by any other name smell so sweet?

Alas, poor, mod points! I knew them well, yet I have frittered them away on frivolous frippery, ere knowing that yon post awaited!

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lord of the flies" anyone..?

(wish I could login from work - the parent deserves proper kudos for his analysis)

You really nailed this issue ... There _must_ be a free movement of ideas and concepts for any sort of progress. Any by free, I do mean monetary and idealogical. Money, in the context of culture is intended as a lubricant to make the process more accessible, and to reward those who dedicate themselves to the enrichment CULTURALLY of society. In any clash between gain monetarily and gain culturally the weight must be placed on the side of culture.

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[mcgrew]

Almost all of the stories he retold as plays would now be lost forever because they were derived from bardic tales or previous plays that would have been protected by copyright

I'm a staunch supporter of copyright reform; I believe 20 years is reasonable, and non-commercial use should not be seen as infringing.

However, your Shakespeare illustration is wrong. You can't copyright a story, only the telling of the story. I can take Gone With the Wind, completely rewrite it in my own words with different names for the characters and set it in the American revolution, and it will not infringe on the Gone With the Wind copyright. You can't copyright an idea, only its expression.

OTOH, most of Disney's early stuff like Cinderella, Snow White, etc would have infringed copyright had copyright lengths been the limitless limited time they are now.

Re:Let's talk about Shakespeare

[BranMan]

No, Hollywood proves that a million rehashes of the same PUBLIC DOMAIN story can coexist. How many millions of versions of Star Wars are there? Or Gone With the Wind?

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[abigsmurf]

The director likes them so that makes it fine and dandy.

The producers , the actors, the financial backers, the distributors and the hundreds of other people who were involved in the making of this film, who cares about what they think?

Not saying the rest of the production team approve or disapprove but to say that because one person involved in making the film (who probably has minimal legal rights to it anyway) says it's ok, you should have permission is also rather stupid.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[abigsmurf]

The subtitles are the only aspect of it that was a parody. The rest of the video is unaltered. You would be laughed out of court if you used this example.

To highlight why this isn't protected: I could do joke subs to say, Iron Man 2 and then legally copy the entire film and the film studio wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Parodies require a certain amount of original content to be protected.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Director != copyright holder. It's the director's job to make it sellable. It's the copyright holder to ensure the sales actually happen.

They're going to lose sales now

[macslut]

Damn. I just bought a copy of this movie. I had never heard of it until the parodies, but watching them made the original seem like it would be interesting. Now I feel guilty paying for it instead of pirating.

Oh yeah..

[The Creator]

The man playing Hitler in that movie does an amazing job.

Then how come he still loses?

Submitter approves?

[YourExperiment]

YouTube has pulled scores of parodies of the 'Hitler Finds Out' scene from the movie The Downfall. Ironically, I had never heard of this movie before this — and now I want to watch it.

So you're saying these takedowns are a good thing, because they've made you aware of the film?

Re:Submitter approves?

[metacell]

Of course not, you silly boi.

He's saying censorship is a good thing, because it makes you aware of the good stuff!

Re:Submitter approves?

[YourExperiment]

Isn't that what I just said?

Re:Submitter approves?

[metacell]

Yes, I just added humour to it.

Re:Submitter approves?

[YourExperiment]

You did? Sorry, I didn't notice. :)

Travesty, not parody

[metacell]

[nitpick]
A parody of X is when you make an exaggerated or humorous version of X in order to criticise or ridicule it. So a parody of The Downfall must try to criticise or ridicule the movie or the scene itself. If it doesn't (if it ridicules something else, or is just funny in itself), it's called a travesty.
[/nitpick]

Re:Travesty, not parody

[metacell]

?? Why on Earth did someone believe this was a troll?

I did make an error, though. If it ridicules or criticeses something else, it's called a satire. Only if it is supposed to be funny in itself, it's called a satire.

The parodies stopped being funny

[stevegee58]

The EFF article states that the parodies are "consistently funny". I found that after the first 2 or 3 parodies I basically couldn't watch them any more. Waste of time.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[metacell]

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire.

Not in Europe. "Work for hire" is an american concept. Here, the creator of a work retains his/her copyright (although the creator may be under contractual obligation to allow copying and distribution, or be forced to license his/her work in the case of multiple creators).

More significantly, the right to object to a work being treated in a way that destroys its artistic integrity can never be signed away. It always rests with the creator(s). European filmmakers have been using this right to take action against TV networks that ruin their movies with commercials in inappropriate places (for example, at the moment where suspense is at its highest).

Propaganda

[linumax]

Hitler was behind the ban all along.

Re:Send them an email and let them know how you fe

[Bearhouse]

Good idea, but maybe you should have posted AC, since they'll doubtless now sue you "for encouraging spamming"...

Monty Python did this right

[Bearhouse]

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/19/201255

See plenty of their clips (legally & for free) here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/montypython?blend=1&ob=4

Since the director of the film apparently *likes* the parodies, why not organise a competition, with a YouTube channel for the winners?
Yipee, instant good karma for the movie industry, (for a change), instead of this Streisand effect boomerang.
All the parody clips will be back, or posted elsewhere, within minutes anyway....

Downfall parody

[Anonymous Coward]

I love those Downfall parodies. My recent favorite is the one on Scott Brown's election. They took down the one I had bookmarked but I found another copy here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4D14aMMBTM&feature=PlayList&p=6DA5968189137AFE&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1

STUMBLEUPON

[waspleg]

I just added this video to Stumble. Long live the parodies.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Shrike82]

I strongly encourage you to read this post. Since you posted before him I'll refrain from tagging on a random insult and/or derogatory remark about your intelligence.

Jews for Nerds!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are bad enough!

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Binestar]

The clip used is less than 4% of the total film. Well within fair use. Putting a joke subtitle under a similarly short IronMan clip is fair use as well.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[MobyDisk]

I'm curious - how do they make Hitler movies in Germany, when any image of the swastika is banned?

Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary

[bugeaterr]

The acclaimed documentary which focuses on a woman who was actually in the bunker with Hitler.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blind_spot_hitlers_secretary/?critic=creamcrop
This film and Downfall are both excellent and compliment each other very well.
After watching them, the parodies may not seem as funny for a while...

Five steps to a lawsuit

[tepples]

And anyawy, the wording of the fair use part of the US copyright is not a complete list

True, but anyone who relies on this fact had better have money to spend on lawyers. The maximum sequence is as follows:

1. Content ID results in informal takedown.
2. Uploader sees the Content ID takedown and files an informal counter-notice, including a tweet-length fair use rationale. Video goes back up a couple weeks later.
3. Complaining copyright owner sees the counter-notice and files a formal DMCA takedown notice.
4. Uploader sees the DMCA takedown and files a formal counter-notice, including an affirmation of the fair use rationale under penalty of perjury. Video goes back up a couple weeks later.
5. Complaining copyright owner sees the counter-notice and files a lawsuit against uploader.

I've had two videos stop at step 2 and one at step 4. I've been lucky enough not to have anything go to step 5, but it remains possible, and unless you have the cash for an army of lawyers, you had better stay within a more solid fair use guideline like that used by English Wikipedia: use pieces of a work to comment on the work or its author.

Single most insightful thing said in this thread.

[sgtrock]

Wish I could mod you up to 10 zillion.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[azgard]

I am not German, but I think they are not banned for reenactment of historical events, under which this would certainly qualify. (We have similar laws here in Czech Republic, and they also apply to communist symbols, such as hammer and sickle).

artists self-distribute

[circletimessquare]

there is no need for distributors any more, so lets remove that red herring

then they make money off of ancillary means: concert gigs, advertising and promo, personalized content, etc

their artistic product is merely advertising, and it is given away for free. to not give it away for free is to simply hobble your own advertising

in this way there is money to be made, and there is no need to control (what can't be controlled anyways)

"I'll admit that intellectual property kills culture a little bit. Right after you admit that unbridled sharing kills culture a lot more."

unbridled sharing is a cultural ferment which maximizes cultural production in quantity and quality. so no, what you are asking me to admit is the opposite of the actual truth. un bridled sharing is the ultimate expression of a maximized cultural output

your problem is you think that money has to be made for culture to be made. this fails to understand what motivates artists, it is also fails to understand the role seed money plays in the production of culture: when you invest in money into a movie, you WILL be paid back via ancillary means (the cinema house) and you WILL make a profit (assuming its good product) and there is no need to try to control consumer behavior. imagine fucking that

Re:artists self-distribute

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

there is no need for distributors any more, so lets remove that red herring

Did I say distributors anywhere? How about we remove that strawman first?

then they make money off of ancillary means: concert gigs, advertising and promo, personalized content, etc

Sooner or later, they start to realise that it's the ancillary means that are keeping them afloat, and this "recording" business is really just detracting from their concert sales. What makes you think they'll still record? Advertising is all well and good, but you're not supposed to give away all your product to everyone; that would just be moronic.

unbridled sharing is a cultural ferment which maximizes cultural production in quantity and quality

What unmitigated crap! I don't need to tell you all the arguments in favour of intellectual property. There's significant evidence and logic indicating that unbridled sharing is extremely detrimental to cultural growth, when compared with limiting sharing. Removing boundaries to sharing only works if you have something to share!

your problem is you think that money has to be made for culture to be made

And your problem is that you keep trying to stuff words in my mouth. What I see is that creating anything is much, much, much more than motivation. I mean, if motivation was all it took to accomplish something, I would have developed human teleportation by now. In the real world, motivation is only one small part of making something happen. You actually need the means to make something happen.

I may have a beautiful melody in my head, but that doesn't provide me with two guitars, a bass, a drumkit, a microphone or two, a studio, recording equipment, and people to operate them. No, I actually have to work for those, and pay for those. And even when they're bought, people are just going to download the recordings for free, and I'm expected to cough up the cash to go on tour, which will only be successful when I become an overnight star of unprecedented proportions (when comparing to others who have tried to launch their careers over the internet).

Wake up! There's no such thing as a free lunch. As it turns out, pushing the costs onto the artists doesn't work so great either.

the lunches won't be free moron

[circletimessquare]

what changes is how you pay for your lunch

the insane communist business model i am advocating is the same as broadcast tv or fm radio: give it to people for free, and make it up in increased attention which you capitalize on ancillary means (here, concerts instead of vinyl records). your assumption is that the guy who will listen to an mp3 for free is the same guy who will buy it if he can't get it for free. if he can't listen to it for free, he won't listen to it at all: this is the impoverished culture angle i am getting at

look: television was supposed to kill the cinema house in the 1950s, in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house. now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house

oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits. watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your friends over? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?

there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience. meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever

music: live gigs

books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc

no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash, and there will ALWAYS be cash to be made

so stop defending the dying distributors with your antiquated reasoning and let the artist and the consumer experience a golden age of internet distribution. you can't control it, so stop trying

These are not parodies.

[FiloEleven]

In reality, the bunker scene depicts Hitler reacting furiously to the news that the war is lost as Soviet troops close in on Berlin. The internet parody leaves the video and audio intact, but replaces the subtitles with Hitler reacting to ridiculous every day events, like having his xBox live account canceled, or finding out that Michael Jackson died.

I don't see how this qualifies as parody when the only thing changed is the subtitle text. The clips are humorous when done well, and an argument might be made for fair use, but this is not parody. Parody requires imitation, whereas this is closer to annotation.

Parallax fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Parallax is no longer corrext - afaik, all of the PASS videos have now also been removed, either manually b/c youtube employees found the site, or automatically because the content ID system has been improved.

And very few of Parallax's suggestions preserved listen-able sound quality imo.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Mashiki]

Non-contextual. But don't worry, I've been insulted by more intelligent people who have no real world understanding. Just like you.

OK, Let's talk about Margaret Mitchell

[symbolset]

While I was talking about Wm. Shakespeare and thinking about 1001 Arabian Nights and the Brothers Grimm WRT to Disney, I did say any remembered artist, so let's look at your example, "Gone With The Wind" by Margaret Mitchell.

Although not even a retelling of the story but an adaptation of the characters intended as parody of race relations issues in "Gone With The Wind", "The Wind Done Gone" written by Alice Randall was published in 2001 by Houghton Mifflin. The book did not even reference any of the character names or even set locations of the story in "Gone With The Wind" but merely implied them. The heirs of Mitchell sued, claiming it was an "unauthorized sequel". A judge found grounds to issue an injunction and the book was blocked from market for two months before the injunction was overturned. After a large legal fees and considerable risk to the author and publisher an undisclosed settlement was reached, "an unspecified contribution to Morehouse College".

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory they're the same, and in practice they're not. Even though you may be correct in a perfect literal interpretation of the legal issues this has little bearing on the actual state of copyright in practice today.

So no, unless you've got a publisher with a great lawyer and a good bit o'cash, you can't "take Gone With the Wind, completely rewrite it in my own words with different names for the characters and set it in the American revolution".

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i

[Shrike82]

You seem to have detected an insult in my post. Apparently my humour was too subtle for you. Don't worry, I've been misunderstood by more intelligent people who have no real sentence parsing ability. Just like you.

Back on topic, care to explain what you you mean by "Non-contextual"?